The 99% Declaration and National General Assembly are not the product of any one person. These two ideas were developed by thousands of people from all over the world and they are good ideas. Not “good” as in “clever” but good for the betterment of our people who are suffering terribly. According to the 2010 census, 150,000,000 people live in poverty or in low-income households in the wealthiest, most prosperous country in history.

Everything we are accomplishing is due to the opportunity, provided by #OWS and the 99% Movement. This chance for massive grassroots change may never come again.

Citizens United, SOPA, NDAA, misuse of FISA and the Patriot Act have now changed the game and we must organize and act before corporations, who have now been deemed people, are permitted to consolidate their power to such a level that they will directly control the military. We already know they indirectly (if not directly) control the police. This not an alarmist or fantastic statement. Certain sections of the NDAA, signed into law by President Obama, permit the armed forces, historically barred from acting within the United States by the Posse Comitatus Act, to obtain military jurisdiction over American civilians. These new detention laws can deprive U.S. citizens of the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and The Bail Reform Act which, until now, ensured that every citizen be timely brought before a neutral and detached magistrate to apprise the accused of the charges he or she is facing and immediately make a bail determination based on a list of objective factors. The NDAA denies access to counsel under the Sixth Amendment and effectively suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Americans accused of being “belligerent” towards the United States. The supporters of this law claim it is necessary to maintain our national defense yet,“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” -British Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger.

The board members of this group cannot be Delegates nor do we have any say about what goes into the final petition of grievances. This group’s role is to hold an open and transparent election of 876 delegates to a National General Assembly and provide a venue in Philadelphia for the elected Delegates to meet and ratify a Petition for a Redress of Grievances as authorized by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The Board also acts as a “blind” trust, which receives donations that will not be disclosed to the Delegates so they are not influenced in any way when proposing or voting for grievances. Delegates may not take money from anyone except to pay for their expenses to and from Philadelphia. It is this model of a blind trust funded by the taxpayers that we seek to replace the current corrupt funding of political campaigns by corporations and other concentrations of great wealth.

It is critical to mention that The 99% Declaration’s requirement of a transparent election was never intended to be a slap in the face to #OWS and their use of direct democracy. In our view, an election representing all of the geographic sections of the country is necessary for the courts to compel the government to redress the grievances voted on by the National General Assembly in July. In the history of the use of the PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, the courts have rejected past petitions because they were not deemed sufficiently representative of the American people.

Therefore, we have required an election for a very specific legal reason: to give full force and effect to an important section of our Bill of Rights, which allow the PEOPLE to demand specific actions by their government. By using the very same geographic distributions the current corporate state uses to elect its representatives and keep them in power year after year, the government will be forced to redress the petition or suffer the electoral consequences.

When the petition is ratified in July, signed in front of Independence Hall and served on all three branches of government; all politicians who are running for office in 2012 will be asked their positions on the grievances and solutions listed in the petition. Should the politicians ignore the petition, Clause V of the declaration will be activated and the electoral revolution will begin. In 2014, candidates will be run in all 435 districts (and the 33 open senate seats) who will take a public pledge to immediately redress the grievances in the July 2012 National General Assembly petition.

The delegates will be elected in Spring 2012 and then work together to come up with grievances and solutions to be in the final petition. Between 7-2 and 7-4, the 876 delegates will then vote on each proposal one by one and decide what should be in this FIRST PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES at this National General Assembly. We are suggesting ten or twelve points in this petition but the elected Delegates may include as many or as few as they so decide. There is no reason that this effort cannot continue parallel to and in synergy with #OWS’s continuing peaceful resistance to the corporate state that has insidiously stolen our democracy. #OWS has reawakened the American consciousness and gotten us off the couch, out the door and into the streets!

We call upon all of the Occupy General Assemblies to send us their ideas and suggestions for incorporation into the final petition. All are also welcome to become Delegate Candidates for the National General Assembly.

65 Comments

It seems like a pretty solid action plan. It's more than what Occupy has. Focused on some important key issues. That can help the most people, the most effective way. By working with and through government.

i applaud your efforts and support the declaration!! when half of the citizenry live at or below poverty, i have a VERY hard time calling this the most prosperous, or richest nation. in fact, i think it's the top 10% ONLY that live good, comfortable, joyous lives. meanwhile at least 50% clearly struggle to subsist, and 40% eke out a living with little comfort, ease or joy--a few paychecks away from bankruptcy. you cannot call this situation the richest most prosperous nation--i think that's clearly a mischaracterization, perhaps a mass delusion ignoring the elephant in the room like the trite sayings of how free we are,,, it's like we trick ourselves into believing.

thanks for the link! i am surprised monaco is not #1 although it's technically a principality, not a sovereign, and also, and that ireland and iceland are as high, particularly given the fact they are insolvent/broke.

we are wrotely taught too that we have the best healthcare in the world and this is patently false, WHO ranks US as 39th in the world... best indeed ha!

Morning getting back to the 99D, this whole thing is tough small groups all over the counrty which depend on people feeling as though they have an impact to keep them involed, yet we need to push change onto a huge system, people have point out that NY should have more people there than ID, based on support, I hear that but a supporter that comes from a very red area couild bring a lot to debate I think. In the end it will depend on those with positio in the movement being willing to support the movement before their postition that's what all movements depend on.

The Legatum Center for Development and Entrepreneurship at MIT
Legatum made a structured gift of USD50 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to create a Center which will support the Legatum Fellows. Graduate students at MIT participate in a cross-faculty program with the goal of starting a for-profit enterprise in a developing country.

The Health sub-index assesses countries by outcomes that are made possible by a strong health infrastructure, such as rates of immunisation against diseases and public health expenditure. Countries are also assessed on outcomes such as life expectancy, rates of infant mortality and undernourishment. The sub-index also includes measures of satisfaction with personal health and the health effects of environmental factors such as water and air quality, and even environmental beauty.

this project actually started here on this forum (http://occupywallst.org/forum) back around Oct 9 ? .... it has received much opposition in many ways from many different directions... how-ever it IS one thing that will work... whether it get's enough support from the Occupy movements is yet to be seen....

Sounds bold, I want to see change so I support, voting/changing the debate. This is bigger, more of a break from the system than I would normally support, but maybe that is what compromise feels like, because I like that this represents huge change without throwing out the Constitution.

Guam, the Virgin Islands, Wyoming, the American Samoa, and the North Mariana Islands currently have NO delegate candidates! If you live in a US territory and are looking for an opportunity to help, put your name up and join us in July!

And ladies, the declaration calls for one male and one female candidate from each district in order to offer a fair representative body. I noticed a lack of female candidates, so ladies, please sign up and help out in July.

That is not an answer. Many minorities tend to group together in politics . Think congressional black caucus. I think there is a Mexican one too.
If you think that is going to magically disappear in your convention you are mistaken.

I support the 99D. From what I read here at the OWS forum, the 99D is the best defined and most workable path forward. We can all work to resolve any "flaws" we might perceive as we go forward. Time is of the essence.

How about transexuals, noncitizens and minors, all of which have been crucial, not to say essential, in the establishment and development of OWS, yet they are specifically excluded from the right to act as delegates to this rump conference.

Please try to stop yourself from taking what I work for. Please go earn what you would like to have rather then feel you are entitled to what I have. Thanks and please try to enjoy life's journey I know it is difficult for most of you to enjoy and like seeing other people suffer.

This document went off into crazy land by the third paragraph, where it alleges that corporations control the police. Then it drops a bunch of misinformation about the NDAA. It implies without saying directly that the NDAA authorizes the military to arrest American citizens within the United States and then detain them indefinitely. It doesn't. It says that the NDAA authorizes depriving people of access to counsel, when actually the NDAA provides access to military judges and lawyers to detainees for the first time ever.

If the goal is to represent the 99% and to attempt to unify a broad range of the American population behind a common statement, then how is a radical, alarmist message like this going to accomplish that goal? Most political moderates are going to stop reading before they get to the fourth paragraph. It may be common wisdom among Occupiers that the NDAA authorizes Obama to detain and torture American citizens within the United States, or that corporations control the police. But you're not going to win over the rest of America with extremist talk like that.

The only way that the 99% Declaration can succeed is if it actually represents the views of the 99%. Issues like "Health Care for All", "Protection of the Environment" and "Jobs for All Americans" only seem like universally-accepted wisdom if you're insulated within a left-leaning bubble. Those are wedge issues that are not going to unite the left side of the 99% with the right side of the 99%. You can't claim to represent 99% of the population while openly leaning left and only representing half of the population. The declaration either needs to truly be centrist and focused on common-ground issues, or it should be renamed "The Liberal Declaration".

Wow, to call those three issues, "Health Care for All", "Protection of the Environment" and "Jobs for All Americans" wedge issues, makes me wonder what would you consider as an issue that would receive common traction. If you mention social issues, you lost my support; I don't believe the federal gov't does so well when policing social issues. In my opinion, they should only address economic issues.

In order to represent the 99%, you have to represent conservatives also. Or else you're not representing the 99%.

"Re-institution of the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps and similar emergency governmental agencies" is extremely leftist. That's going to immediately turn off half of the 99% who oppose big government. People who oppose raising taxes. The same goes for "Medicare for all". Those are wedge issues, not unifying issues.

And "Protection of the Environment" isn't free. People on the right oppose ideas like cap-and-trade partly because they don't want to see government getting bigger and intruding further into commerce. Many of them feel that way because they actually agree with you that government is corrupt and that it represents the interests of corporations and the 1%. That's your common ground.

For this 99% declaration to work, the people drafting it have to accept that they're representing 99% of the population. Not just progressive liberals. Otherwise, calling it "The 99% Declaration" is completely disingenuous. If you want the support of 99% of the American people then you need to learn to think like people who think differently from you. You need to learn to empathize with their concerns and seek consensus issues rather than wedge issues.

I just pointed out a common-ground issue in my previous post. The liberals who are drafting "The 99% Declaration" introduce the document by talking about sweeping government over-reach, and they express concern that government is acting in the interests of corporations and the 1%. They express that through all kinds of extremist talk about the police and the NDAA.

Conservatives actually feel similarly that government doesn't represent their interests. Many, perhaps most, also feel that government represents the people who are willing to pay the most to be represented. Suspicion of that kind of corruption is at the heart of the conservative vision of smaller government.

Can you spot the common ground here? Many, perhaps most, on both sides of the aisle are suspicious of corruption in government at the hands of the 1%.

Listen, Tech, I am not in total agreement with the 99 % Declaration. I'm not in favor with all of what is listed or, more to the point, how it is presented. There are issues that, as you pointed out here, that are a wasted effort to an extent because they don't fully analyze what is past, current, or in the process. I have listed two things that I found right off the bat.

That isn't what I am asking you, is it? We have a lot of Vets that are in prison or in jail or homeless. There have been countless attacks on retired Vets. Is this an important issue to you?

Vet issues are not going to energize the 99%. I don't disagree, but the issues of The 99% Declaration have to be both broadly supported and also really important. Or else most people just won't care. Talking about vets and the environment and saving the whales is all just a failure to focus on core, compelling, common-ground issues. Like government corruption. Citizens United. Super PACs. Lobbyists.

Elimination of the Corporate State.
Overturning the “Citizens United” Case.
Elimination of All Private Benefits to Public Servants.
Term Limits.
A Fair Tax Code.

That's exactly what you want. That's exactly what 99% of us want. Regardless, all of it is not set in stone in any way whatsoever. The delegates will convene in July to decide on the final declaration. That list on the website is just Michael Polock's personal opinion on what should be in the declaration.

If you want a declaration that includes you, then go sign up to be a delegate in your district. Put in your profile that you want to vote AGAINST points x, y, and z, and vote FOR points a, b, & c. Just like I have been telling you all along, you're not going to change anything by complaining on an internet forum. You are welcome to join in all of these things, but you have to put the bare minimum of effort if you want your conservative view points to be represented.

It takes 10 minutes to create a delegate account. Go do it, and while you're at it, go to http://www.americanselect.org/ and create a voter account on there as well.

Look, while I agree with many of those points this ain't gonna work.
You people can't even agree on who the 99% are.
Constant hatred towards conservatives that you and others spew. Do you really think that conservatives are such a tiny minority?
Wake up!

valid point.... GF, it's my understanding that the listed grievances are just their current attempt to a consensus based out-line....

quote;

HELP DRAFT THIS HISTORIC DOCUMENT!
The final version of the PETITION FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES, is to be written and ratified solely by the elected Delegates, and may or may not include the following grievances and solutions currently suggested by the 99% Declaration Working Group.

That's a start ( heart in the right place ) now it takes involvement discussion improvement and implementation by everyone. Continuous improvement. Processes are never finished only started and then hopefully improved as improvement becomes possible.

Well, they can't really say that the under 21 group of offenders is languishing in adult jails if they are considered adults. It gives the impression that there are 13, 14 and 15 year olds that are being held up with the adults. They cannot do that. So, it would have to be between the age of adulthood in the state and 21. If the age of adulthood is 17 in your state and a 17 year old is arrested for drugs and taken to jail then he is no different age wise then the 17 year old that just got popped for a gun charge. The 17 year old with the gun charge would also be languishing in an adult jail---because he is considered an adult. Even if the kid bought the gun illegally because he was in fear for his life.

If they don't reinstate funding (provide a lot more funding) for public defenders, it is going to get ugly. In fact, in many areas they better reinstate adequate funding for the courts as a whole or it is about to get ugly. It is quickly getting to the point (in some areas) where rights will be violated.

The cost of drug or mental health treatment can be as low as $1,100 per year while the cost of incarceration can be as high as $70,000 per year. Drug and mental health courts must offer multiple alternatives to incarceration, support, treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment for profit.

They might want to separate that as well. Faux privatization in one area substituted for faux privatization in another is never good. Oh, I bet they can run up treatment to $70,000 if they tried.

There are those that are mentally ill and there needs to be a discussion on what constitutes "treatment" so to speak. All yous are general.

If you have someone that is mentally ill and gets popped for drug use, you may be dealing with an individual that will need to be in life long care. They may refuse to take their meds which of course starts the whole cycle over with until someone gets hurt. What resources are available where they will be treated humanely? Is that resource for profit or is this faux privatization? The same problem came out in Florida with nursing homes. A profit cannot be made if they actually treated them humanely. And yet it continues.

Do the rehabs keep track of success and failures and for how long? I don't think that tracking for three months or even six months is adequate.

They need to choose between decriminalizing the softer drugs such as marijuana, therefore, not stating that it is legal (which would appease those that firmly believe that it would be sending a message of approval) and embracing the Harm Reduction method fully which has proven to deter crime associated with it or legalization. I don't think you will find support in legalization.

I'm not so sure that there will be a lot of support for drug related offenses (non violent) because there has to be some type of protection for the public.

You are of coarse correct. - Juveniles can not be imprisoned with adults. Even if they are charged and convicted as adults they can only be placed in a juvenile facility until they come of age and are then transferred to adult lock-up.